Monthly Archives: January 2012

Backlash and second-guessing aside, social media use among nonprofits shows no signs of trailing off. In fact, some organizations are taking it to the next level by building their own online communities.

In early 2011, over 11,000 nonprofits participated in a social network usage survey sponsored by NTEN,Common Knowledge and Blackbaud. The respondents were asked about their use of social networks such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Foursquare, etc, as well as their own “house” social networks.

Results of the 2011 Nonprofit Social Networking Benchmark Survey indicate that social media use by nonprofits continues to grow, with 92 percent using at least one public social network (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube). Nearly 90 percent of nonprofits reported having a presence on Facebook, with 57 percent of agencies on Twitter and 47 percent on YouTube. Over half (58 percent) of the nonprofits using social media are measuring their reach and engagement levels, while 9 percent calculate the financial impact.

Nonprofits without a presence on any social network claim a lack of strategy (60 percent), lack of budget (57 percent) and lack of expertise (36 percent) as the top three reasons why they have not yet adopted this marketing/fundraising approach.

The study has loads of interesting data, especially on the use of private social networks – communities hosted on a nonprofit’s own website – with 13 percent of respondents running these “house” networks. Are they the next step in nonprofit online engagement? Copies of the report are available for download at the survey website.

Utilization of economic analysis to examine public policy and system operations just makes good sense, especially in this time of budget cuts, freezes and expectations for programs to do more with less. Regardless of some of the rhetoric out there, I doubt that waste and overspending is favored by anyone. The expectation that organizations, whether they serve vulnerable populations or protect the community at large, will make sound fiscal choices is more than fair. It only follows then that decision-making at the policy level is informed and supported by economic analyses. After all, the well-being and safety of an individual or a community is not necessarily best served by the most costly methods.

Over one and half million children (1 in 45) are homeless in America according to the December 2011 report, America’s Youngest Outcasts 2010, from The National Center on Family Homelessness. According to the data, during the latest recession – 2007 to 2010, homelessness among children increase by 38 percent, with just 5 states reporting a decrease in child homelessness during this period of time.

Pennsylvania ranked 9th (out of 50, with 1 being best and 50 being worst) in extent of child homelessness and risk of child homelessness, and 21st in child well being, as well as in planning and policy efforts around child homelessness. The composite state ranking for Pennsylvania (11th) and all other states is detailed at the National Center on Family Homelessness website.

Research on the racial digital divide, or the difference in access to computers and/or Internet connectivity between White and non-White young people, gave rise to the creation of Community Technology Centers (CTC), places where youth without access to technology could learn and practice such skills. Data from a 2009 Pew research study suggested that the expansion of handheld wireless devices for communication and connectivity did much to shrink the disparity, though others point out that such devices only have a limited impact. However, researchers studying the linkages between CTCs and the relationship that CTC participants had with technology found that CTCs had a greater impact on youth development than merely boosting technological knowledge.

building social capital – relationship-building and strengthening or creating networks with peers as well as adults in the larger community;

giving youth a voice – telling their own story through written and visual digital methods; and

encouraging and facilitating engagement both inside the community and with the outside world.

These findings serve to remind me that access to technology for youth (and really, everyone) is not merely about games, cool apps and other bells and whistles, but about the sharing of information, bridging gaps, and widening networks. It is easy to opine that technology merely strengthens relationships that were initiated “the old fashioned way” – through face-to-face meetings – but if you locked up your wireless devices and desktop(s) for a month, while continuing the rest of your daily routine, what would be your experience around social capital, story-telling and/or level of engagement? Would losing your access to computers or the Internet result in an overall loss, gain, or no change?

Article citation:
London,Rebecca A., Manuel Pastor, Jr., Lisa J. Servon, Rachel Rosner and Antwuan Wallace. The Role of Community Technology Centers in Promoting Youth Development, in Youth and Society. Youth SocietyDecember 2010 vol. 42 no. 2 199-228.
Originally published online 23 November 2009. The online version of this article can be found at:DOI: 10.1177/0044118X09351278

Share This

Nonprofit Resource Memo is an informational blog for the nonprofit community in western Pennsylvania (and beyond) featuring posts on news, research, policy initiatives and trends that impact the human and social services sector.